Distinguishing the fast 50s...

[sparrow6224]

Currently I'm shooting on a Canon P and an M2 using the Canon 50/1.8 on the former and the Summicron 50 rigid on the latter, with my CV Color Skopar 35/2.5 sometimes intervening.

But I hanker after a 50/1.4. I cannot afford the Zeiss 1.5 or the Summilux, but I'm looking at the 50mm Canon 1.4, the Canon 50/1.5 (or I'm actually not looking at the Canon 50/1.5 because it's never available, but I'm certainly interested in it) and the Nikon 50/1.4 in LTM. For some reason the CV 50/1.5 doesn't interest me.

So I've read about these lenses and looked at photos taken with them; but I have not yet seen what kind of technical information is available for distinguishing them. Have they ever been tested against one another? In the end, the Sonnar copy aside, which is the better lens, the Canon 1.4 or the Nikon 1.4? The Nikon seems to be a little more expensive most of the time.

 

[shyoon]

Personally, I love the Sonnar look, and if you find yourself doing close-up, wide open stuff, the Nikkor excels in that area.

But I have to ask, do you really need that extra half-stop in speed? It's a lot easier to go from 1/30 to 1/60 than spending $300 on a new lens.

 

[squinza]

If you really want something "fast" f/1.4 or f/1.5 doesn't really makes a difference with your 50mm/1.8.
You'd better look for a 50/1.1 (nokton) or a 50/1.2, not to mention a noctilux.
As far as the two Canon you mentioned, I have both of them. There isn't a clear winner, the 1.4 is definitely sharper, but the sonnar renders very nice photoes (especially in B&W). Bokeh is completely different, too.
The sonnar is definitely smaller but ergonomics are better for the 50/1.4, IMHO. Anyway, as you already have a planar (the 50mm/1.8), I'd go for the sonnar, or look for a wartime Zeiss: they are about the same price, but they are quite rare.

 

[Mablo]

I've had a couple of very good condition Canon 50mm/1.4 lenses. It's a sharp lens but it doesn't blow your hair back with 'character'. If your Canon 50mm/1.8 is in good condition I'd stick with it. That's what I did ;-)

 

[ChrisN]

The Canon 50/1.8 is a fine lens. I wish I'd held on to mine.

 

[Bingley]

I agree. The Canon 50/1.8 is terrific. Very sharp, beautiful smooth bokeh, a nice amount of contrast to give punch to color film, but also very good w/ B&W. I had mine cleaned earlier this year, and it simply rocks.

The Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are both planar designs, and are sharper edge to edge wide open than the sonnar-design Canon 50/1.5. The 50/1.4 is a distinctly larger and heavier lens than the 50/1.8, however, which is another reason I've stuck w/ the 50/1.8. I think the 50/1.8 balances beautifully on an M2 or a P.

The Canon 50/1.5 is also a beautiful lens for portraits, and stopped down is also quite sharp although I've never done a head-to-head comparison with the 50/1.4. Raid, however, has, and what I recall from his comparison is that the Canon 50/1.5 gave a warmer case to color film than did the Canon 50/1.4, which was distinctly cooler.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Canon 50/1.4 wide-open on the Canon 7.

Tight Crop:

Nikkor 5cm F1.4, "NKT" (early), wide-open:

Tight Crop:

And a really good 1950s Jupiter-3, wide-open at F1.5, one of the first that I rebuilt:

Tight Crop:

I regretted selling that J-3, but promised it out... But my 1953 KMZ J-3 is "at least" as good.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

But for character...

Uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, converted to LTM:

Wide-open on the M8:

As far as technical information: The Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are 6 element in 4 group "1-2-2-1" double-Gauss formula lenses, highly corrected. Like having two very similar optics back-to-back, the aberrations of each tend to cancel out. The Sonnar F1.5 formula lenses are 7 elements in 3 groups, 1-3-3. Less air-glass interfaces, more light is transmitted, more contrast. Asymmetric lenses, not as well corrected with regard to flatness of the formed image. This tends to give a "3D" look to a portrait. The sharpest areas tend to "curve around" in the image. Can be used to an advantage, takes some practice.

 

[mfogiel]

If you want a faster lens for shooting in the dark, just push Tri X, it will work fine. If it is a question of a shallow dof, just get 10 cm closer, and you will have it shallower. If you want nice bokeh, look for older Leica lenses - actually, you already have a great one, the Rigid Summicron. This one is with the old Elmar 2.8/50:

 

[splitimageview]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89371

 

[Krosya]

I'm not sure why you dont like CV 50/1.5 - as it is a superb lens, much better than many other more expensive ones.

I never liked Canon 50/1.4 for some reason - not a bad lens, just I liked others better for different reasons.

Canon 50/1.5 is very good, but I prefer Nikkor LTM 5cm/1.4 (which will cost at least the same or more that Canon 50/1.5)- it's sharper and can be made to focus closer (huge advantage IMO). Actually, if close focus is important to you - only few faster 50s will do (or can be modified to do so) it.

So, Nokton 50/1.5 can be fixed to do it. So can be Nikkor 5cm/1.4. Or you have to for a late pre-asph Lux or Asph lux.
Pic from Nikkor 5cm/1.4:

Nokton 50/1.5

 

[Krosya]

To add - I agree about the Canon 50/1.2 - very cool lens if you get a good one:


nyear4 by krosyagms, on Flickr

but they are getting expensive.

And than there are amazing lenses like M-Hexanon 50/1.2 (I replaced my Canon 50/1.2 with it):

Scan137 by krosyagms, on Flickr

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Canon 50/1.2.... Sometimes picking up two bad ones works out...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36138

The Frankenstein Canon 50/1.2 on the M8, wide-open.

Not bad for $90.